Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[otello]

Due Process Finding - Strict Scrutiny Analysis

PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING)

REASON

Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental

right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.

Zablocki, 434 US at 388. That the majority of California voters

supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as “fundamental rights may

not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no

elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319

US 624, 638 (1943). Under strict scrutiny, the state bears the

burden of producing evidence to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly

tailored to a compelling government interest. Carey v Population

Services International, 431 US 678, 686 (1977). Because the

government defendants declined to advance such arguments,

proponents seized the role of asserting the existence of a

compelling California interest in Proposition 8.

As explained in detail in the equal protection analysis,

Proposition 8 cannot withstand rational basis review. Still less

can Proposition 8 survive the strict scrutiny required by

plaintiffs’ due process claim. The minimal evidentiary

presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of

production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly

tailored to a compelling government interest. Proposition 8

cannot, therefore, withstand strict scrutiny. Moreover, proponents

do not assert that the availability of domestic partnerships

satisfies plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry; proponents

stipulated that “[t]here is a significant symbolic disparity

between domestic partnership and marriage.” Doc #159-2 at 6.

Accordingly, Proposition 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[scoobygang]

But I don't think Yoo makes the claim that the court is applying heightened scrutiny. He may have intended to, but I don't see it. He doesn't speak to the conclusion I saw in the decision that there is an utter lack of a rational relationship to a legitimate end here- notice that he doesn't try to present one. I think the court was very, very careful to use those lower-tier words. So if someone wants to show that the court applied a heightened level of scrutiny, presumably you would want to show that the record before the court was sufficient to pass the rational basis test, thus the only conclusion is that the court must have raised the bar, right? But he doesn't do that or even say it.

He's writing for a general audience, so he's making a general point. Courts generally don't second guess legislators (or voter initiatives) by making them provide extensive empirical support for their decisions. He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway. I think the point is made at the appropriate level of specificity for his audience. Some of his generalizations are clearly wrong, but I don't expect much out of an op/ed.

 

[scoobygang]

Due Process Finding - Strict Scrutiny AnalysisPROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS AFUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING)REASON

Yes, it's a belt and suspenders decision. Walker applies both levels of scrutiny to show it fails either way. It is true, however, that this is primarily a rational basis decision.

 

[otello]

STANDARD OF REVIEW [EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE]

As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection

Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of

review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question

whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should

be subject to a heightened standard of review.

Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational

basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians

are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect.

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia, 427 US 307, 313 (1976)

(noting that strict scrutiny may be appropriate where a group has

experienced a “‘history of purposeful unequal treatment’ or been

subjected to unique disabilities on the basis of stereotyped

characteristics not truly indicative of their abilities” (quoting

San Antonio School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, 28 (1973)). See

FF 42-43, 46-48, 74-78. Proponents admit that “same-sex sexual

orientation does not result in any impairment in judgment or

general social and vocational capabilities.” PX0707 at RFA No 21.

The court asked the parties to identify a difference

between heterosexuals and homosexuals that the government might

fairly need to take into account when crafting legislation. Doc

#677 at 8. Proponents pointed only to a difference between same-sex

couples (who are incapable through sexual intercourse of

producing offspring biologically related to both parties) and

opposite-sex couples (some of whom are capable through sexual

intercourse of producing such offspring). Doc #687 at 32-34.

Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government

may use sexual orientation as a proxy for fertility or why the

government may need to take into account fertility when

legislating. Consider, by contrast, City of Cleburne v Cleburne

Living Center, 473 US 432, 444 (1985) (Legislation singling out a

class for differential treatment hinges upon a demonstration of

“real and undeniable differences” between the class and others);

see also United States v Virginia, 518 US 515, 533 (1996)

(“Physical differences between men and women * * * are enduring.”).

No evidence at trial illuminated distinctions among lesbians, gay

men and heterosexuals amounting to “real and undeniable

differences” that the government might need to take into account in

legislating.

The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the

appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative

classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications

based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows

that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize

individuals based on their sexual orientation. FF 47. Here,

however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to

survive even rational basis review.

Q: Is this the first time that a federal court has indicated that strict scrutiny applies to a classification based on sexual orientation?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Q: Is this the first time that a federal court has indicated that strict scrutiny applies to a classification based on sexual orientation?

First one I know of. Not sure, though.Funny that this is getting zero coverage. I had to scrounge through the decision to find it among 100 pages of rational basis scrutiny.

 

[scoobygang]

Q: Is this the first time that a federal court has indicated that strict scrutiny applies to a classification based on sexual orientation?

First one I know of. Not sure, though.Funny that this is getting zero coverage. I had to scrounge through the decision to find it among 100 pages of rational basis scrutiny.

I've seen state courts apply intermediate scrutiny on gay marriage/civil union cases on the theory that the it's actually gender discrimination (I can marry Angelina Jolie, but krista4 can't). Walker makes a factual finding along those lines, but he doesn't seem to apply intermediate scrutiny.

 

[Statorama]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

 

[scoobygang]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

I'm sure you'll be celebrating Kagan's confirmation tonight. I'm eating in a Chinese restaurant in tribute.

 

[MongoL3]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

 

[otello]

It will interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit does with this. A buddy of mine clerked for a district court in the Ninth. He told me that the judge would say, "The Ninth Circuit affirmed me, and I still believe I'm right."

 

[MongoL3]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

I'm sure you'll be celebrating Kagan's confirmation tonight. I'm eating in a Chinese restaurant in tribute.

That poor lady is homely.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I'd like to see how your resume stacks up with Yoo's.

This is the weakest form of argument. If you disagree with Tobias' rebuttal of Yoo, then please state your reasoning.

Timmy, you'll make a fine hall monitor someday.

 

[Josie Maran]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

Why am I not surprised that you follow Adam Lambert on Twitter?

 

[Statorama]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

Why am I not surprised that you follow Adam Lambert on Twitter?

 

[MongoL3]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

Why am I not surprised that you follow Adam Lambert on Twitter?

Actually, it was the "stars happy with prop 8 ruling" on fox news. Sorry to burst your bubble. We can pretend i follow him on twitter if it makes you feel better tho.

 

[Statorama]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

I'm sure you'll be celebrating Kagan's confirmation tonight. I'm eating in a Chinese restaurant in tribute.

She may turn out to be the best of the "Democratic Rubber Stamp" candidates.

 

[urbanhack]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

You still following the Grand Wizard on twitter?

 

[Running with scissors]

John Yoo weighs in

Torture memo John Yoo?The John Yoo that authorized warrantless wiretaps?

The John Yoo that argued to place presidential power as above the law?

That John Yoo?

Why would his legal opinion be worth more than the toilet paper it was written on?

 

[MongoL3]

He doesn't delve into appropriate scrutiny because he has something like 400 words to work with and he's writing for guys like Stat who wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about anyway.

I don't right understand fancy lawyerin words

Yeah this thread got boring quick. We need to lighten things up a bit. On that note. Adam Lambert is very happy with the ruling. Apparently he tweeted "We're gonna throw glitter on this barn tonight"You go boy!!

You still following the Grand Wizard on twitter?

Who? I dont follow anyone on twitter, i dont twit or tweet

 

[tommyboy]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

 

[dparker713]

Yoo's point seems to be that this decision may claim to have been using a rational basis level of scrutiny, but that it was infact using a significantly higher standard. And that subjecting all federal laws to such a heightened standard would lead to the invalidation of the vast majority of them.

If he wanted to do so, he didn't do a very good job of it. I think maybe you are applying your own reasoning to what the guy wrote, because I don't see any discussion of the varying tiers of scrutiny in his piece. I see slippery slope arguments and false statements about the inapplicability of rational basis equal protection analysis to all laws.

Why is me applying my own reasoning any more plausible than you applying your own reasoning?

I was challenging Yoo's argument. I'm saying what you posted (about the court actually using a heightened level of scrutiny) was not in what Yoo was saying as far as I can tell, but is actually your own idea, and maybe you just saw something that wasn't there because it's what you think. If so, I don't know that I agree with you, but I certainly think that has more merit than what Yoo wrote. And it only took you two sentences to say it, too.

If you think that's in what Yoo said, great. I'd be curious as to where you see it, though.

My point is that you're claiming Im biased, yet in trying to establish that bias you rely on your own interpretation of the article and completely ignoring any potential biases that you may have had when reading the article. And this passage pretty clearly alludes to a heightened rational basis analysis:

Did the stimulus and bailout bills in fact encourage economic growth? Do the illicit drug laws in fact increase health and reduce crime? Can we catch terrorists by monitoring their emails and phone calls without a warrant? One judge, armed with a few social science studies, could decide to overrule the considered judgment of the elected branches of government.

 

[Running with scissors]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

You still haven't explained why the mores of "thousands of years ago" are relevant today. How many goats did you give as a dowry for your wife?

 

[timschochet]

Something that's been really bothering me today- and I think it should bother everyone, no matter what side of this issue you are on: it's the assumption, probably correct, that this will be a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, with Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.

Why does this have to be? Why do people as bright as Antonin Scalia or Sonia Sotomayor have to be relegated to assigned roles in these issues, where we know beforehand the position they're going to take? I mean, what's the purpose of giving these people lifetime appointments, if they're not going to look at each issue with independent reasoning? It's just frustrating to me that on these sorts of issues, everybody seems to know how most of the court is going to vote beforehand. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

 

[MongoL3]

Something that's been really bothering me today- and I think it should bother everyone, no matter what side of this issue you are on: it's the assumption, probably correct, that this will be a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, with Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.Why does this have to be? Why do people as bright as Antonin Scalia or Sonia Sotomayor have to be relegated to assigned roles in these issues, where we know beforehand the position they're going to take? I mean, what's the purpose of giving these people lifetime appointments, if they're not going to look at each issue with independent reasoning? It's just frustrating to me that on these sorts of issues, everybody seems to know how most of the court is going to vote beforehand. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

I dont know, i think its kinda fitting. This country is screwed...

 

[scoobygang]

Something that's been really bothering me today- and I think it should bother everyone, no matter what side of this issue you are on: it's the assumption, probably correct, that this will be a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, with Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.

Why does this have to be? Why do people as bright as Antonin Scalia or Sonia Sotomayor have to be relegated to assigned roles in these issues, where we know beforehand the position they're going to take? I mean, what's the purpose of giving these people lifetime appointments, if they're not going to look at each issue with independent reasoning? It's just frustrating to me that on these sorts of issues, everybody seems to know how most of the court is going to vote beforehand. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

We know how Scalia is going to vote because we have 20 years of decisions to go by, including fire-breathing dissents in Romer and Lawrence. We don't necessarily know how Alito, Roberts, or Sotomayor will vote. If there would be a surprise, Roberts might be it (he did some pro bono for gay causes while at Hogan, on the other hand his wife really is a pretty shrill social conservative).Nobody is relegating any justice to an assigned role. Rather, people have studied these justices enough to have a decent idea of how they'll rule.

 

[dparker713]

Something that's been really bothering me today- and I think it should bother everyone, no matter what side of this issue you are on: it's the assumption, probably correct, that this will be a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, with Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.

Why does this have to be? Why do people as bright as Antonin Scalia or Sonia Sotomayor have to be relegated to assigned roles in these issues, where we know beforehand the position they're going to take? I mean, what's the purpose of giving these people lifetime appointments, if they're not going to look at each issue with independent reasoning? It's just frustrating to me that on these sorts of issues, everybody seems to know how most of the court is going to vote beforehand. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

We know how Scalia is going to vote because we have 20 years of decisions to go by, including fire-breathing dissents in Romer and Lawrence. We don't necessarily know how Alito, Roberts, or Sotomayor will vote. If there would be a surprise, Roberts might be it (he did some pro bono for gay causes while at Hogan, on the other hand his wife really is a pretty shrill social conservative).Nobody is relegating any justice to an assigned role. Rather, people have studied these justices enough to have a decent idea of how they'll rule.

Plus, they all do use independent reasoning. Its just they have a pattern of reasoning that is somewhat consistent (so moreso than others).

 

[jon_mx]

This will not be the best thing for Democrats in the up coming elections. If this forces all states to recognize gay marriage, there will be a movement for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. There will be initiatives in many states and that will turn out more voters. Throw this on top of a lot of voters already pissed at the Dems for Health Care Reform and Stimulus and other spending, and the amount of anger is going to be unprecedented. There is going to be a lot of energy focused against the Democrats.

 

[tommyboy]

John Yoo weighs in

Torture memo John Yoo?The John Yoo that authorized warrantless wiretaps?

The John Yoo that argued to place presidential power as above the law?

That John Yoo?

Why would his legal opinion be worth more than the toilet paper it was written on?

he's a professor at Berkley?

 

[Statorama]

John Yoo weighs in

Torture memo John Yoo?The John Yoo that authorized warrantless wiretaps?

The John Yoo that argued to place presidential power as above the law?

That John Yoo?

Why would his legal opinion be worth more than the toilet paper it was written on?

Oh dang, I thought he was the guy that directed "Face/Off"

 

[MongoL3]

This will not be the best thing for Democrats in the up coming elections. If this forces all states to recognize gay marriage, there will be a movement for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. There will be initiatives in many states and that will turn out more voters. Throw this on top of a lot of voters already pissed at the Dems for Health Care Reform and Stimulus and other spending, and the amount of anger is going to be unprecedented. There is going to be a lot of energy focused against the Democrats.

This could work to our advantage. Get in power and change everything back the way it was.

 

[timschochet]

Something that's been really bothering me today- and I think it should bother everyone, no matter what side of this issue you are on: it's the assumption, probably correct, that this will be a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, with Anthony Kennedy as the deciding vote.

Why does this have to be? Why do people as bright as Antonin Scalia or Sonia Sotomayor have to be relegated to assigned roles in these issues, where we know beforehand the position they're going to take? I mean, what's the purpose of giving these people lifetime appointments, if they're not going to look at each issue with independent reasoning? It's just frustrating to me that on these sorts of issues, everybody seems to know how most of the court is going to vote beforehand. Is that what the Founding Fathers intended?

We know how Scalia is going to vote because we have 20 years of decisions to go by, including fire-breathing dissents in Romer and Lawrence. We don't necessarily know how Alito, Roberts, or Sotomayor will vote. If there would be a surprise, Roberts might be it (he did some pro bono for gay causes while at Hogan, on the other hand his wife really is a pretty shrill social conservative).Nobody is relegating any justice to an assigned role. Rather, people have studied these justices enough to have a decent idea of how they'll rule.

Plus, they all do use independent reasoning. Its just they have a pattern of reasoning that is somewhat consistent (so moreso than others).

You guys make good points. Still, I hate that the outcome will be likely so predictable.

 

[Josie Maran]

This will not be the best thing for Democrats in the up coming elections. If this forces all states to recognize gay marriage, there will be a movement for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. There will be initiatives in many states and that will turn out more voters. Throw this on top of a lot of voters already pissed at the Dems for Health Care Reform and Stimulus and other spending, and the amount of anger is going to be unprecedented. There is going to be a lot of energy focused against the Democrats.

This could work to our advantage. Get in power and change everything back the way it was.

 

[timschochet]

This will not be the best thing for Democrats in the up coming elections. If this forces all states to recognize gay marriage, there will be a movement for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. There will be initiatives in many states and that will turn out more voters. Throw this on top of a lot of voters already pissed at the Dems for Health Care Reform and Stimulus and other spending, and the amount of anger is going to be unprecedented. There is going to be a lot of energy focused against the Democrats.

First of all, the bolded would not happen until and unless the Supreme Court makes it happen, which is at least a few years from now. So it will have little effect on this year's election.Second, I think you're wrong anyhow. There's never going to be a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Voters will not decide elections based on this issue in the future, IMO.

 

[MongoL3]

This will not be the best thing for Democrats in the up coming elections. If this forces all states to recognize gay marriage, there will be a movement for a US Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. There will be initiatives in many states and that will turn out more voters. Throw this on top of a lot of voters already pissed at the Dems for Health Care Reform and Stimulus and other spending, and the amount of anger is going to be unprecedented. There is going to be a lot of energy focused against the Democrats.

This could work to our advantage. Get in power and change everything back the way it was.

 

[timschochet]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.

Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

 

[Statorama]

So can gay people start getting hitched in California today?

 

[scoobygang]

So can gay people start getting hitched in California today?

No. Judge Walker has stayed the order of judgment until the motion to stay the opinion pending appeal has been decided.

 

[MongoL3]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

Actually, I was thinking you and a bunch of people from this board wouldnt be around today. Figured you all would be on a flight to cali

 

[timschochet]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

Actually, I was thinking you and a bunch of people from this board wouldnt be around today. Figured you all would be on a flight to cali

Already here!

 

[MongoL3]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

Actually, I was thinking you and a bunch of people from this board wouldnt be around today. Figured you all would be on a flight to cali

Already here!

You throwin glitter on the barn with Adam?

 

[jon_mx]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

That was not really necessary, I expect better from you. But somehow this is an emotional issue for you so you join the lynch mob against social conservatives here. I was just stating my opinion on what I think will happen. Whether it actually becomes an amendment is highly unlikely. But there will be a movement to get it done.

 

[MongoL3]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.

Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

That was not really necessary, I expect better from you. But somehow this is an emotional issue for you so you join the lynch mob against social conservatives here. I was just stating my opinion on what I think will happen. Whether it actually becomes an amendment is highly unlikely. But there will be a movement to get it done.

I know right!! As much grief Tim gets from people you'd think he would be cooler. Even when i havent agreed with him i've never taken pot shots at him.

 

[timschochet]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

That was not really necessary, I expect better from you. But somehow this is an emotional issue for you so you join the lynch mob against social conservatives here. I was just stating my opinion on what I think will happen. Whether it actually becomes an amendment is highly unlikely. But there will be a movement to get it done.

Lighten up Francis. I was just trying to lighten the mood. Peens got it. Don't take me seriously.

 

[MongoL3]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.

Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

That was not really necessary, I expect better from you. But somehow this is an emotional issue for you so you join the lynch mob against social conservatives here. I was just stating my opinion on what I think will happen. Whether it actually becomes an amendment is highly unlikely. But there will be a movement to get it done.

Lighten up Francis. I was just trying to lighten the mood. Peens got it. Don't take me seriously.

Hey thats my job

 

[jon_mx]

Peens, you and jon_mx have an awful lot in common. Relationships are always easier when you start off with mutally shared views.Perhaps the two of you should get together, you know, see if you hit it off. And if it works out, now you can marry.

That was not really necessary, I expect better from you. But somehow this is an emotional issue for you so you join the lynch mob against social conservatives here. I was just stating my opinion on what I think will happen. Whether it actually becomes an amendment is highly unlikely. But there will be a movement to get it done.

Lighten up Francis. I was just trying to lighten the mood. Peens got it. Don't take me seriously.

It did not really bother me, I am just not in the mood for it. Kind of a ####ty week.

 

[tommyboy]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

You still haven't explained why the mores of "thousands of years ago" are relevant today. How many goats did you give as a dowry for your wife?

same reason that courts recognize the importance of mothers when they rule in child custody cases. I'm sure you could convince one judge that mothers aren't important in todays world, but the point is you have a lot of historical evidence to show otherwise.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

All I needed was one to disprove your claim. Sorry, by your own "you are comparing a handful of examples" your point is factually false.

 

[Running with scissors]

.... Beside, even if they couldn't get married, they couldn't have gotten married throughout the entire history of civilization.

Wrong! Gay marriage existed in Egypt, Greece, and Rome (see Nero) and numerous other cultures every where on the planet and every time through out history.ETA: Dealt with starting here.

you are comparing a handful of examples spanning thousands of years and billions of marriages.

You still haven't explained why the mores of "thousands of years ago" are relevant today. How many goats did you give as a dowry for your wife?

same reason that courts recognize the importance of mothers when they rule in child custody cases. I'm sure you could convince one judge that mothers aren't important in todays world, but the point is you have a lot of historical evidence to show otherwise.

Yeesh.

 

[Celph Titled]

Peens, I've seen pictures of your wife. You should be happy about this.

 

[MongoL3]

Peens, I've seen pictures of your wife. You should be happy about this.